Cagey and Cryptic, Aftermath Examines the Futility of Attempting to Undo a Wrong

"We won't make the world a better place, but at least we won't make it worse," says Franciszek Kalina (Ireneusz Czop) to his younger brother, Józef (Maciej Stuhr), near the climax of Wladyslaw Pasikowski's Aftermath. That stark cynicism permeates Pasikowski's unsettling historical drama. The story is simple — two siblings in a Polish village gradually learn of their kin and neighbors' barbaric Jew-baiting during the Holocaust — but what gives Aftermath its peculiar strain of portent is Pasikowski's consistent suggestion of the futility of bold, desperate attempts to undo a wrong.

Not only are there not heroes in Aftermath, there's not even a cut-and-dry protagonist. The director has lifted the material from both Jan T. Gross's 2000 book Neighbors, about the vicious 1941 pogroms in the Jewish-populated Jedwabne, and the 1996 documentary Shtetl, in which a Polish historian stumbles upon Jewish gravestones used to pave town roads. Pasikowski has said the near-decade-long effort to make Aftermath, impeded by Polish nationalists, stemmed from his own shame at these events. But the film is far from a polemic. Its anger is cagey and cryptic, and, at first, its voice of reason seems to belong to a bitter anti-Semite.

Franciszek returns from Chicago to his native Poland in 2001, having left 21 years ago in disgust with Poland's implementation of martial law. America wasn't much better for him, though, and he's bitter about his lowly asbestos work for the greedy "Yids" that "run" Chicago. He's determined to find out why Józef's wife and children have left for America — and why hooligans are beating Józef up and chucking rocks through his window. But Józef, stinging from Franciszek's abandonment — he refused to come back for both parents' funerals, and the family farm has suffered in his absence — isn't providing any answers.

Details

What has stoked everyone's ire is Józef's reclamation of Jewish tombstones used as building material after World War II — in roads, farm structures, the local church well. He's bent on respecting the dead, and, unlike the fuming townsfolk — and his own brother — he sees the Jews as human.

In a more mundane film, Józef would be presented as the tragic noble figure, the one soul in a sea of evil who can see right from wrong. But Pasikowski doesn't shy from making Józef look somewhat ridiculous and misguided. Józef never explains his actions in terms more persuasive than "I kind of figured it wasn't right." He bears little remorse for the harm his martyrdom causes to those close to him, and his obsession seems rooted more in narcissism than a sudden affinity for the Jews. As Franciszek, thoroughly unmoved by Józef's actions, flatly puts it: "It doesn't matter; they are dead," and for the film's chilling first half that alarming notion seems to be Pasikowski's.

Aftermath becomes a more conventional thriller (complete with a booming, overwrought score) as the brothers uncover more secrets. Their own home once belonged to murdered Jews, and the Jews in their community were exterminated not by Nazis but fellow Poles. The brothers' assailants in town aren't portrayed with the same bracing complexity; they are one cartoonishly sputtering mob, screaming epithets, even calling the boys "Jews" themselves. There are a few cipher characters, a good priest and a bad priest. And, more problematically, Aftermath is unlikely to shock anyone outside rightwing circles in Poland — who refuse to do any finger-pointing at themselves — with the revelations that stretches of Poland still harbor a breed of violent anti-Semitism.

Aftermath is not merely a grandiose apology for Holocaust-era complicity. It taps a richer vein with its examination of why such an apology is ultimately so empty, even if it takes profound bravery to apologize. At the least, guilt over past collective wrongdoing does reveals a conscience, and here Pasikowski is essentially excoriating Poland for its lack of guilt. When Józef, at the film's end, can't come to terms with his family's involvement in genocide, he stands for a nation in its most vehement state of denial.

Related Content

Recent trend to make all gentile Poles guilty of WWII war crimes, to
demonized image of all Poles, using horrific murder of Polish Jews in
Jedwabne - as collectively responsible for German war crimes, is an
alteration of history. This is offensive to contemporary Poles who are
protesting generalization and simplification of history. Similarly
naming "collectively" Poles as Polish right-wing nationalists - is
equally offensive. and simplistic. All Poles, or majority of
contemporary Poles, in Poland are not right-wing nor antisemitic. Still,
they may have a problem with how this film may and is interpreted and
generalized abroad. Reading the reviews about the "Aftermath", even
before it has been widely in US, it only gives a glimpse of what will
be written later.

Let me deconstruct one sentence in the article:"And, more problematically, Aftermath is
unlikely to shock anyone
outside rightwing circles in Poland - who refuse to do any
finger-pointing at themselves - with the revelations that stretches of
Poland still harbor a breed of violent anti-Semitism" - WHERE in Poland
now can be found any evidence of violent anti-Semitism? Has been in
Poland , after 1989, a recorded any "violent anti-Semitic incident"?
What is the point of demonizing Poland and Poles now - using a movie, a
thriller, that describes, at the very end, a violent anti-Semitic
scene, that is taking place in Poland, in 2001, that is not based on
any recorded historical contemporary fact. This scene is supposed to
shake the audience at the very end of the movie - and to suggest that
in the contemporary Poland incidents like that are possible. Whatever
Pasikowski intended to convey, it is a pure imagination. It belongs to a thriller, not reality.
I worry about the reviews of the "Aftermath", that are published in the
New York Times, in the Huffington Post, or here in the Village Voice,
and other places - that try to portray evil Poles and Poland now.
Somehow the war crimes committed by Nazi Germany are not even mentioned
in the reviews, it is all in the past for Germany, the real culprit of
the Hell in the Bloodlands; and for Poland, this is just a beginning of
trying to turn the country, that ceased to exist on Sept 1st 1939, and
was an apparent victim of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, into an
accomplice - and an accomplice with carefully pointing fingers to
ethnic Poles only, as a group, as active participants in the Nazi
German crimes. How this generalization became possible? With a history of various ethnic
groups living together in Poland, over the centuries, often ethnically
intermixed, how the world managed to extract from the history, an evil,
pure ethnic Pole, capable of the worst behavior. . Who are the evil
ethnic pure Poles whom the World managed to extract with some, unknown
to Poles, anthropological experiment? What kind of myth is being sold
to American viewers of this film, viewers who have limited knowledge of
history. As one of the film reviewer wrote, Catherine Baum, writes:http://www.menemshafilms.com/reviews/aftermath-review-filmmaking-review: "The
back story is crafted brilliantly – Poland becomes a whole character in
itself, with a personality, mood and motivation – and not always in a
good way. Poland has its dark underbelly." Poland as a whole
character? Poland now? The guilty contemporary, demonized, Poland?
Anybody who is resisting such an interpretation becomes and evil
"Polish nationalist" who represents a group that was behind"banning the
movie in some Polish cinemas" - as the distributor, Menemsha Films
states ( that is actually a false statement, the movie was not banned
in any place in Poland). Poland is doing well - since
1989 - when, after 44 years of Soviet occupation, finally was given a
chance to rebuild, has started truly rebuilding after the horrific
war. Poland had to wait 44 years to be given an opportunity to restore
the infrastructure that was destroyed by Germans and Soviets during,
and after the War. Poland did not have the luxury of Germany that was
rebuilt fast, right after the War, with the help of Marshall Plan.
Germany not only became a leading economic power in Europe, but also
redid its image by stressing that Nazi Germany and postwar German were
two different countries - they were different countries, yet with the
same people who were actively hiding their war past, and blended
seamlessly into the society. The world bought the story about new
Germany and new Germans. Poland, the victim of Nazi Germany, that did
not collaborate with Nazi Germany, does not have the same luxury now.
The World in the collective interpreted memory sees Poland and Poles as
the guilty nation. Where is a balance, I am asking? There
are many in Poland who are ready to discuss history with all the facts,
with all the wounds that have to be again reopen, that most probably
will never heal. Yet, the thriller like the "Aftermath", followed by
black and white accusatory reviews, with loose interpretation, built-in
preconceived hatred aimed at the contemporary Poland, is not helpful
in the dialogue - will not help to sort out the historical truth.
Poland is a fine country now, economically prospering. Poland is ready
to face history without lies and distortions, without historical
alterations that were imposed by the communist regime for many years.
Collective memories of Polish citizens about Soviet and German
occupation, were preserved in (some) families, and after 70 years,
what is left are personal histories that are retained in younger
generations. Poland's past deserves to be studied and discussed using
historical facts only, without preconceived hateful generalizations;
Polish history must studied by honest historians who are not driven by emotions.
Poland, Poles, citizens of contemporary Poland, whatever is their ethnic
background, have right to find their own way, to allow everybody
individually to grieve the horrors that took place in the Bloodlands.
Calling Poles right-wing nationalists and anti-Semites is not a right
way to start and to maintain a dialogue. Polish-Jewish relations are
important to all Poles, and are being rebuilt in many ways. Why all
interested, focus instead on continuing to rebuild such relationships,
on preserving what is left, focus on honoring individual memories -
without generalizations, memories of all families that survived in the
Bloodlands.

Recent trend to make all gentile Poles guilty of WWII war crimes, to
demonized image of all Poles, using horrific murder of Polish Jews in
Jedwabne - as collectively responsible for German war crimes, is an
alteration of history. This is offensive to contemporary Poles who are
protesting generalization and simplification of history. Similarly
naming "collectively" Poles as Polish right-wing nationalists - is
equally offensive. and simplistic. All Poles, or majority of
contemporary Poles, in Poland are not right-wing nor antisemitic. Still,
they may have a problem with how this film may and is interpreted and
generalized abroad. Reading the reviews about the "Aftermath", even before it has been widely in US, it only gives a glimpse of what will be written later.

Let me deconstruct one sentence in the article:

"And, more problematically, Aftermath is
unlikely to shock anyone
outside rightwing circles in Poland - who refuse to do any
finger-pointing at themselves - with the revelations that stretches of
Poland still harbor a breed of violent anti-Semitism" - WHERE in Poland
now can be found any evidence of violent anti-Semitism? Has been in
Poland , after 1989, a recorded any "violent anti-Semitic incident"?
What is the point of demonizing Poland and Poles now - using a movie, a
thriller, that describes, at the very end, a violent anti-Semitic
scene, that is taking place in Poland, in 2001, that is not based on
any recorded historical contemporary fact. This scene is supposed to
shake the audience at the very end of the movie - and to suggest that
in the contemporary Poland incidents like that are possible. Whatever
Pasikowski intended to convey, it is a pure imagination. It belongs to a thriller, not reality.

I worry about the reviews of the "Aftermath", that are published in the
New York Times, in the Huffington Post, or here in the Village Voice,
and other places - that try to portray evil Poles and Poland now.
Somehow the war crimes committed by Nazi Germany are not even mentioned
in the reviews, it is all in the past for Germany, the real culprit of
the Hell in the Bloodlands; and for Poland, this is just a beginning of
trying to turn the country, that ceased to exist on Sept 1st 1939, and
was an apparent victim of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, into an
accomplice - and an accomplice with carefully pointing fingers to
ethnic Poles only, as a group, as active participants in the Nazi
German crimes. How this generalization became possible? With a history of various ethnic
groups living together in Poland, over the centuries, often ethnically
intermixed, how the world managed to extract from the history, an evil,
pure ethnic Pole, capable of the worst behavior. . Who are the evil
ethnic pure Poles whom the World managed to extract with some, unknown
to Poles, anthropological experiment? What kind of myth is being sold
to American viewers of this film, viewers who have limited knowledge of
history.

"The
back story is crafted brilliantly – Poland becomes a whole character in
itself, with a personality, mood and motivation – and not always in a
good way. Poland has its dark underbelly." Poland as a whole
character? Poland now? The guilty contemporary, demonized, Poland?
Anybody who is resisting such an interpretation becomes and evil
"Polish nationalist" who represents a group that was behind"banning the
movie in some Polish cinemas" - as the distributor, Menemsha Films
states ( that is actually a false statement, the movie was not banned
in any place in Poland).

Poland is doing well - since
1989 - when, after 44 years of Soviet occupation, finally was given a
chance to rebuild, has started truly rebuilding after the horrific
war. Poland had to wait 44 years to be given an opportunity to restore
the infrastructure that was destroyed by Germans and Soviets during,
and after the War. Poland did not have the luxury of Germany that was
rebuilt fast, right after the War, with the help of Marshall Plan.
Germany not only became a leading economic power in Europe, but also
redid its image by stressing that Nazi Germany and postwar German were
two different countries - they were different countries, yet with the
same people who were actively hiding their war past, and blended
seamlessly into the society. The world bought the story about new
Germany and new Germans. Poland, the victim of Nazi Germany, that did
not collaborate with Nazi Germany, does not have the same luxury now.
The World in the collective interpreted memory sees Poland and Poles as
the guilty nation. Where is a balance, I am asking?

There
are many in Poland who are ready to discuss history with all the facts,
with all the wounds that have to be again reopen, that most probably
will never heal. Yet, the thriller like the "Aftermath", followed by
black and white accusatory reviews, with loose interpretation, built-in
preconceived hatred aimed at the contemporary Poland, is not helpful
in the dialogue - will not help to sort out the historical truth.

Poland is a fine country now, economically prospering. Poland is ready
to face history without lies and distortions, without historical
alterations that were imposed by the communist regime for many years.
Collective memories of Polish citizens about Soviet and German
occupation, were preserved in (some) families, and after 70 years,
what is left are personal histories that are retained in younger
generations. Poland's past deserves to be studied and discussed using
historical facts only, without preconceived hateful generalizations;
Polish history must studied by honest historians who are not driven by emotions.
Poland, Poles, citizens of contemporary Poland, whatever is their ethnic
background, have right to find their own way, to allow everybody
individually to grieve the horrors that took place in the Bloodlands.

Calling Poles right-wing nationalists and anti-Semites is not a right
way to start and to maintain a dialogue. Polish-Jewish relations are
important to all Poles, and are being rebuilt in many ways. Why all
interested, focus instead on continuing to rebuild such relationships,
on preserving what is left, focus on honoring individual memories -
without generalizations, memories of all families that survived in the
Bloodlands.

"At the least, guilt over past collective wrongdoing does reveals a
conscience, and here Pasikowski is essentially excoriating Poland for
its lack of guilt." - during the horrors of War World II, there was no
collective wrongdoing only individual wrongdoing in the occupied Poland,
done by individuals from various ethnic groups. Collective
wrongdoing applied the German society that followed blindly Hitler, and
let Hitler's army, and their followers to destroy Europe, implement
Holocaust of all European Jewis, and kill millions others, too. Isn't
it interesting that word German does not appear in this article - how
Germans, Germany managed to get away, by now, with murder? with war
crimes of WWII?The horrors of Jedwabne are responsibility of individuals
who made wrong choices under encouragement of Germans who were
slaughtering Jews, village after village, town after town, in this
region of occupied Poland. Even Jan Gross is quoted: "Gross recognized that German forces were in Jedwabne during the massacre: "There
was an outpost of German gendarmerie in Jedwabne, staffed by eleven
men. We can also infer from various sources that a group of Gestapo men
arrived in town by taxi either on that day or the previous one." (in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedwabne_pogrom),

Poland is ready to discuss behavior of the outliers who, during the
War, behaved badly, in the society that was left defenseless, society
that was occupied by Soviets and Germans, during the War, and again, by
Soviets, after the War. The world must acknowledge all the horrors
that happened then in the Hell of Bloodlands, between Berlin and Moscow.
There is a chance to discuss this period of history with all the facts.
Almost everybody who survived the War in this region, in the German
occupied territories, in the Bloodlands, did not survive it unscathed -
some individuals survived and harmed others, some survived because others died instead, majority survived being passive witnesses to the others being killed; and only a small fraction behaved as heroes: they fought, they protected others at a great risk (and maybe others died because of that, too). Nobody survived the War unscathed.